tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 1, 2012 1:00am-5:59am EDT
would make sure we take action. i praised president obama, as you will recall, about changing the rate, recognizing that is very many of the things that my friend has said -- it is very important for us to do this in the context of overall tax reform. as we move to april 30 of next year, what we plan to do is to not, as president obama said, do what would hurt us, that is in pretax -- that is, increase taxes. >> you have a bill that basically does not extend the child tax credit, does not extend the opportunity tax credit, but protect tax breaks for millionaires and millionaires. >> i will withhold my question. >> you want them extended at the
stimulus level. we do it at the same dollar amount. both bills are at the same dollar amount. what you do is read -- enhanced refund ability. we go back to the pre-stimulus la. >> i want to correct the record. in two cases, relating to the improvement, which is important in terms of the education opportunities it eliminates. it eliminates this for 11 million families, at the bill the republicans have presented would a fact 25 -- the fact 25 million families. two provisions related to improvements we made and the education opportunity tax -- why in the world, when we talk about
the need to improve education, would you eliminated the grant that affects 11 million families? in terms of comprehensive tax reform, it is one thing to talk about -- the main impact of what the republicans are proposing is to cut rates down to 25 and 10. there would be a $30,000 tax break for people with an income over $1 million. it has general principles. there is nothing comprehensive about it. you are saying, we will do it next year. see who is in control. we will have at tax reform either way. right now, this congress has a chance to pass something we all agree to -- middle-income tax cuts. >> these expanded, refundable
credits that my friend on the other side calls tax cuts -- a non-partisan joint committee says that these are spending, not tax cuts. when you enhance the refund ability of something. we need to follow the characterization of the joint committee on taxation on this. i think that a one-off on rates will not move the economy and the country forward. we need to look at our tax code may comprehensive way, not just on the individual side, but at the highest corporate rate in the world, the fact that we are still in a worldwide system of taxation. the president has a framework on corporate tax policy similar to the direction of the draft bill i have introduced goes. there is more than just the rate here. the rate is not going to be enough to impact the kind of -- of the impact we need to sea after 41 months of 8%
unemployment. we need to do more than simply a simplistic bumper sticker rate. americans want more. >> you are talking about a middle-income tax cut. >> allow me to try to not take too much time here. i have a technical question, a broader question, and maybe a statement. i will be extremely brief for that too many cliches in the middle of this. i believe he said that 97% of small businesses make more than $250,000. >> last. >> less than 250,000. i wanted to know what the source was? >> the joint tax committee. the nonpartisan joint tax committee. >> is that/district? the irs in my district has a remarkably different version of
taxpayers in my particular area, almost the mirror opposite. >> i doubt it can be done by district. let me say something -- >> i want to know from whence that came. >i realize you made one statement in there about this not being a zero sum game, which is somewhat significant. i have said this before. i am an old schoolteacher, which makes me one of the least wealthy people around here. one of the papers ranked assault, and i was 430 at the 441. -- ranked us all, and i was 430 out of 441. i've heard on the internet that, after serving one year, i get my entire salary for life and will have health care the rest of my life -- which some might as well do, since everybody thinks we do
that. i realize that is not true. [laughter] we would be voted out of office. but i would have my money -- who cares? >> i think the chairman should lead and you should discuss that idea. >> let me assume that you guys are not the ones below me, whoever that happens to be, and that you are above the $250,000 level, as some people are. the thing i am having a hard time getting in this zero sum game -- if i taxied at a higher level, how does that help me monetarily? i do not get the money from you. it will go to a government entity that would expand something somewhere else. it is the one thing that becomes the new bakir -- if you get more, it does not mean that i get more. i find that to be a unique
concept we keep playing with, getting caught up in what is fair and not fair. let me just say my one problem that i have with both bills, including yours. as long as the death tax exists at all, it is wrong. that is still the most abominable, unfair tax ever invented by mankind. i will not be satisfied until that is totally eliminated, until there is such a bill that we can -- >> with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much. i will forgo a substantial number of questions, primary among them, why the chair of the joint committee on taxation would have full power to determine our introduction of the expedited provisions.
i cannot understand that. i gather that it is political calculus being employed. that is the prerogative of the majority. after 20 years -- >> both mr. levin and mr. kemp have referred to this as a nonpartisan committee on taxation. >> well, the provision i was speaking about allows the certification to be at the discretion of the joint tax committee chairman alone. that would allow, among other things, an opportunity to add other measures that are unrelated, such as health care repeal and a variety of other things. i do not want to go down that road. i want to simply say that if kicking the can down the road was a parliamentary olympic
event, then the american congress, with its systemic cowardice, as i see it, would win gold, silver, and bronze and tin -- i do not understand why we continue to not face up to the harsh reality that we are all confronted by, democratic and republican, liberal and conservative, in this country. i do not think that this gets us there. extending something, particularly for 25 million americans that are working families -- i do not see how this will help them at all. i for the life of me do not understand why we cannot pass the middle-class tax cuts that would allow for certitude, for
at least 98% of americans. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i wanted to comment on the one point. the model for that budget -- we look to other house procedures and congressional procedures. every day it is in the sole authority of the budget chairman to determine points of order. it would be done in the same way. however, relying on the advice of this budget committee staff, the budget chairman, just as the ways and means committee would rely on the nonpartisan recommendation of the joint committee on taxation as to what would be in order or not in order -- >> you understand my concern. >> i have heard others raise it. i do not think everybody has heard why it is done that way.
this is already procedure of the house with regard to budget points of order. the nonpartisan staff of the joint committee would make that recommendation. >> let me add, if i might -- we are talking about the second bill that would be way beyond technical. >> the supreme court has already done that. we have all the power rwanda. >> i will not belabor that point, mr. chairman. >> i would like to -- i am disappointed by the one-year. we were not serious about fundamental tax reform -- we wasted a year of all our lives. it sat on a desk never to be seen again. in the two years democrats controlled all the legislative branch, the executive branch --
tax reform movement was just as anemic. the truth is that there has been more movement in the direction of fundamental tax reform in the 18 months you have been chairman then i have seen in two decades of watching the process around here. i applaud you for that. i would agree with mr. levin. i am not as much of a fan of the principles you laid out as the ones i have laid out, but the principles you have laid out are open enough that mr. levin can have his say and those of us who support the fair tax can have our say. to put it on an expedited process and say, let's stop talking about it and get it done. let's get the loopholes out that mr. mcgovern is discussing. i would like to ask you, mr. levin -- who you think benefits the most from the loopholes and carve out and exceptions? is it the middle-class taxpayers, or is it a different class of people? >> let me mention -- sometimes
the word loophole was misapplied. the essentially, you talked about the principle -- to get down, to have two brackets would reduce the revenues dramatically. in order to achieve that, you would have to diminished and probably eliminate -- >> let me make sure i understand. the principal chairman camp has laid out -- the only proposals that he his -- he is entertaining our proposals that bring in 18%-19% of gdp. you tell me this reform will lower revenue instead of increased it. what do i misunderstand? >> those two brackets would
reduce revenues. in order to make up the revenues, you would have to eliminate or come close to it the mortgage interest deduction, the church will contribution, the health exclusion, the education report -- provision, state and local taxes. >> who benefits most from the state and local tax -- >> the answer, i would like to send you the charts from the joint tax. i would appreciate your looking them over. the mortgage interest deduction is more than anything else in middle-class policy, a middle- class policy. the same is true of the health exclusion. overwhelmingly middle-income. the same is true of the education -- health, education
and mortgage interest deductions. they help to make the middle- class of this country and simply say -- and to simply say two tax brackets without explaining the impact, i do not call that comprehensive tax reform. there are loopholes we need to address. i could give you some. >> i think comprehensive is a large term. it sounds like, from what you are saying, to get to the rates chairman camp has laid out we will have to deal with almost every provision in the tax code -- all of those loopholes will have to go. all of the exemptions will have to go. i would -- what about the corporate side? that is an even larger challenge. >> the joint tax committee said that if you eliminate all of the provisions that stimulate manufacturing in this country, you would not get down to 25%. my criticism is simply saying
that there is a figure without saying how you would get their -- there is not any effective way to approach tax reform. >> i do want to make a comment about this joint study -- it was an incomplete analysis. there are 90 tax areas they then did not include. they said it was a preliminary study. they have not done a complete review on that. the reality is, if we can get comprehensive tax reform that creates jobs, we do not have to eliminate every tax. that is what the committee process will be about, both in the house and senate. as you point out, the principles we adopt say that revenue will have to be coming in between 18% and 19%. >> you mentioned the hearings
the ways and means committee has had. i represent the fair tax folks. when the president's tax commission looked at that, they said no fundamental proposal did more to lift up the lowest of than the fair tax. you held the first hearing on the fair tax in 12 years. i do not think that extending things when you are at a time is how to get things done. the kind of work and effort you put into this -- it means a lot to me. mr. levin, you took issue with the ernst and young study that said 100,000 jobs be lost if we implemented your proposal. you had issues with the methodology and their conclusions. is it closer to 600,000 jobs that would be killed by your proposal? what is the right number? 500,000 jobs? >> the proposal to continue
high-income tax cuts -- there is not evidence that continuing it will lead to economic growth. indeed, we had years and years of taxation with that provision, and there is no evidence that it worked. indeed, it lead to immense deficits. the bush tax cuts were not the only source of the deficit, but they were a significant source of deficit, and there is a $50 billion difference between the two bank bills in terms of the interest -- increase in deficit. >> i am trying to figure out what that $50 billion is worth. i accept your premise that the study may not be entirely accurate but, what is it? is it killing 500,000 jobs? >the chairman is talking about one year so that we can get
serious about something you and i both agree this congress has not been serious about since 1986. >> why don't we -- >> i do not know how many jobs it is. >> i am not sure there is evidence. >it may also be zero. there is an agreement -- >> does that mean ernst and young got it so wrong? >> the methodology is flawed. they assumed that none of the differential of 49 billion would be used for deficit reduction. it is a very flawed study, and i think there is strong evidence that extending the bush tax cuts for high-income families will not promote economic growth. we have before the ways and means committee proposals like accelerated depreciation, which republicans and democrats have supported, which would clearly promote economic growth. yet it does not come out of
committee and we do not vote on it. why don't we vote this week on extending the accelerated depreciation to 100%? the middle-e extend income tax cuts and that, and have the argument about high- income tax cuts later? the answer is that the republican party is essentially stuck in cement on extending high-income tax cuts. that is what grover norquist says. we cannot get enough flexibility on your side to sit down and do the middle-income tax cuts and argue about high-income afterward. >> i fear that is not what we cannot -- i feared for his partisan statements like that which are why we cannot get things done. i am not a signatory of the grover norquist pledge, although i appreciate the work he is
trying to do. there is not one member of the republican congress that does not believe in higher revenues for the united states america. you have said it not once, twice, but three times. >> i was talking about higher taxes. >> you are talking about higher tax rates. >you are saying that the chairman does not believe in higher revenue. he has said, if he'd -- if it does not happen, he won not have his name associated. >> as long as there are no tax increases. >> i look back at 1986 -- the gentleman may have been here in 1986. i was not. i'm tremendously proud of the work we did. individual income tax revenues were $340 billion. with the reduction in tax rates that you came together to implement, with the kind of comprehensive tax reform that eliminated loopholes, flattened
rates, broad and the bases -- three years later, 1989, income tax rates have gone up 33%. on the corporate side -- what you did on the corporate side -- $63 billion. three years later -- it had gone up 66%. you did it once -- i think you can do it again. i will tell you, speaking for the republican freshman class, we want to work in that direction. if we can do what you did in 1986, i will call that a huge success and applaud you both. >> you would support increases in taxes? >> i am committed -- my sites may be higher than the chairman's. he set a lobar -- 18% of gdp. i see constant spending 20%. 18% of gdp is about 15% better
than what we are doing now. i will take that as a step in the right direction. >> i think -- it is unfortunate that we're having this discussion in this way. there is strong bipartisan support for tax reform. we could be here talking about whether the marginal rate should be 27.5 for some sign or 30% or 25%. instead, this fix is it at 35%. we could be talking about corporate tax reform, where there is interest in making companies more competitive and preventing outsourcing jobs. we are presented with a rather odd hr 6169. to this problem -- it identifies your own committee as a impediment to tax
reform and eric cantor as an impediment to tax reform. it is essentially says that tax reform, which it defines -- says, it's here is what is. with certain parameters that do not have bipartisan support. as if we cannot get rid through the ways and means committee -- >> on all three accounts, that is not accurate. the impediment is on the other side of the gavel, where the threat of a filibuster is the region we are pursuing the goal but we have here to insure that we can actually have action taken. >> a follow-up question -- then why does the bill have expedited house procedures is a berkley? >> that is so that we can make sure we work with the senate to
get this done. the real impediment happens to be on the other side, as we know is often the case. >> rules for the senate are something both sides of this house can agree on. what this bill provides, in addition to expedite senate rules, which would be less problematic, again, it bypasses this committee, bypasses your own committee and the majority leader, whereby, if the majority leader does not bring up the bill, any member of the house can then do so. i do not see this -- i see this as an avoidance of the discussion of tax reform. my only question -- why are we not talking about tax reform? why are we not talking about a marginal rate, a corporate raider -- why, instead, are we
talking about a deficit-busting tax proposal with a marginal rate of 35% without any corporate tax reform to make american companies more competitive? >> there are a few points. first, the fast-tracked process has been a discussion since 2011. it was something considered in the super committee. this is not like the super committee process. this is a process that is in power in the committee to do their work. -- and powering the committee to do their work. -- and power -- empowering the committee to do its work. revenue has to be between 18% and 19% of gdp. that is above the 40-year historical average and is higher than what is now.
these processes are mirrored in the house and senate. they are very similar approaches in both bodies -- both sides have been talking about this. senator baucus is quoted as saying he is very interested. this is working with the house and senate to fashion a way that we can have the house and senate act. regular order -- that is what we are trying to find a way to do. >> knowing the time is short, i would hope that your committee -- i wish it could take up tax reform in an expeditious manner and find a bipartisan path to a concept embodied in 1986, have the important discussions about the rate, make sure that we can
have a fair tax code for our country that promotes growth -- i think it is doable. but we are not doing that. instead, we are talking about a rate higher than any of the rates, even when i look at democratic proposals for tax reform, some might have a 30% rate. yours is a 25% rate -- but anybody talking about lower than a 39.69 -- the 9.6% rate, from what i've heard -- i hope this does not serve as an excuse not to pursue that. i hope your committee takes this opportunity to do something for our country, tax reform. i yield back to the chair. >> i appreciate where you are on this issue of tax reform.
the new to this body -- you look back and go, why have we not been able to accomplish this in the past? 20 years ago? lumberjacks -- longer? that was the last time you are able to even discuss it. when we hear discussions of extensions of tax cuts or increases, you are asking for a year. a year of no change in regards to tax policy implemented under the bush administration, rhee implemented under this administration, so that we can go to regular order. am i seeing this correctly? >> you are correct. >> how you see that proceeding over the next -- you have until april. >> you -- we spent the last two years laying the groundwork.
>> how many hearings have you had? >> more than 20. we have had to bang joint hearings with the senate. the first hearings between the two bodies in more than 70 years. we have a third plan for the fall on investment taxes. we have a third one that we hope to complete this year. we will continue to work until the very end. then, the committees would begin to mark up legislation. you would have until april to do a. >> in regular order. >> in an open process. >> input from both sides? >> yes. and a vote. trying to fashion a bill we can move forward on. we have laid out principals -- when you look at what the rest of the world is doing, we need to be in step, given how mobile capital is. we are hamstringing our
countries -- companies with double taxation. if we can simplify the code and get to two rates for individuals and have corporate entities at the same rate -- there is not a distortion there. those principles are there to create economic growth. if you just do one, corporate or individual, you cannot get the economic impact from the 1980's, which was significant -- significant revenue to the government, growth, and job creation. that is what we need after 41 months of 8% unemployment. >> could i respond very quickly? i think that whoever wins the election in november will take up tax reform. the principles that are mentioned in the republican bill would be very different
depending on the election, but either way i think that we will have tax reform. the principles that are set out in the republican bill, in many cases, are either very vague or are too explicit. having two -- >> even by washington speak -- >> some of them are very vague. they talk about certain things. for example, going over to a territorial -- that is vague. you have to filter in. there is no territorial tax system in the world. they are all hybrid. what is not beg is going down to two tax brackets -- vague is going down to two tax brackets, 10% and 25%. if we take over, that army --
not be the standard we use. that would lead to a huge tax increase for very wealthy families. it would also have an immense impact, if you carry that out, on the mortgage interest deduction, on health care exclusion, on the education provision, on state and local taxes -- who would be impacted by the removal of the provision -- i do not think we have all the data on that, but we do have the data on some of them that it would very much hurt. the narrow class. we will take up tax reform, whoever chairs this committee, but it will be very different. >> could i respond? i have also introduced a draft territorial bill that is not incorporated into these principles that has been public since october and has received a lot of comment in hearings and
informally. it is specific. it has several different types of provisions, how we prevent companies going to the lowest- tax jurisdiction. we are competing with the entire world, so we need to look at a new way of our international tax policy. there are ideas out there that generated a lot of discussion and support. again, we want the committees to drop these bills. this will be an exercise the committees do, in the house and the senate. the senate can start on day one next year as well. their deadlines are different because of the constitution -- the house must act first. we would be the first body to act. that is where a process is set up in that way. >> what i like to hear is the fact that it will be an open
process. even though you have the framework without -- laid out. some are defined and some are not, but the framework is there -- you can have honest debate in regards to what the final legislation actually looks like. correct me if i'm wrong -- it gives you the opportunity to craft it so that everybody has the opportunity. we do not know what the final legislation will look like. >> the structure is very much like what was developed in san san -- simpson-bowles. we are trying to get to a point where, if the rate is zero and there is nothing, and then there is bipartisan consensus, we must have, for the good of the country, for longstanding policy -- the rate goes to another level. we think that you can do pro-
growth tax reform's not and in all preferences at 25%. if there are many preferences that can be added back in, the rate will not be 25%. people understand as they are supporting and voting, the costs, if you will, in terms of rates. certainly on the business side, many people have said we won 25%. they are willing to give up a lot. what is important is parity between corporate,pass-through, and individual. so that you are not penalized because you are a big company and get a different than some individual. there is a lot of misunderstanding about business taxes. we have a lot of carry-forwards. if businesses have losses and carry them forward, they might not pay any taxes in a later
year. we need to look at all that and say, is that still the position you want to take, given the tremendous misunderstanding it has with the public? >> whoever chairs the ways and means committee can give you this assurance. it will be an open process. >> that would be different than it has been in the past. >is that correct? >> i would like to move forward. that is where we need to go. >> it was an open process in a real sense. >> ok. one of the things that my good friend from georgia brought up was the fair tax. i am co-sponsor of that. i wish the discussion was strictly on that issue. but it is not. the district, i
am talking to my small business people, those who will be set -- hit by a tax increase if we were to do what our friends on the other side of the aisle would like us to do. they are the ones creating jobs. i come from a district that has double-digit unemployment. when i hear people talk about the ability of small businesses -- i do not care if it is one job. that is one more person in my district to can get up and go to work, feel like they are accomplishing something, and go home to their family. when i have the same small businesses, and i am not talking 20 employees. i am talking to hundred, 300, 400 employees, those types of corporations that will be hit with a tax increase when we can least afford it on this job
creators -- i do not know if ernst and young got right, got clothes, or were way off the mark, but i will tell you that in my district, those small corporations that would see a tax increase, we would see a loss of jobs, not an increase of jobs. >> i have given you the joint tax analysis. 97% of businesses, small businesses, would receive a full tax cut. that is their analysis. 3% would not. if that 3% -- they are not all small businesses. the joint tax committee did its best. it is a mistake for any of us to take an example of one or two and ignore the joint tax --
>> mr. levin, i do not doubt their analysis, but i will tell you that real people, real people that i sit and work with on a regular basis before i was ever in congress. when i was a sheriff -- these are real people that create jobs. these are real people. any study i here does not talk about the real people, at least in my district. >> we should not dismiss that the only real people are the 3%. 97% will get extra. >> i will just tell you that they are real people. those are the real job creators. it is more than half of all small-business income. there are two sides.
the other part is that it is half of all small-business income. >> that is because the 3% have huge amounts of income. that is a false argument. >> you can move the statistics anyway you want. all i can give you is my take on it. i yield back. >> i have the privilege of managing -- i will save my comments for tomorrow. thank you. >> thanks for so much time. >> we will proceed to mr. blumenauer. he appears to have left. mr. van hollen -- mr. van hollen is next. he does not appear to be here. mr. hoyer and ms. pelosi are
next. please come forward, mr. hoyer. they are next. welcome back to the rules committee. it is nice to see you. without objection, and he prepared statements you have will appear in the record in its entirety. we certainly welcome your summary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen of the committee, ranking member, thank you very much. i appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. i will reiterate what others have said. the american people obviously are deeply distressed. they are distressed that, when they see agreement, that that agreement is not made into law. they here are saying, and i hear you saying, we are here -- for this. they hear us saying the same thing and yet nothing happens.
the senate has passed a number of bills by votes of over 60 votes, some by over 2/3 votes, and they have sent them here and they have not been passed. we have an opportunity in my view to make a statement to the american public that will raise their confidence and perhaps maybe a little bit of their respect as well. as has been noted on numerous occasions, i am sure, we have agreement. we do not have agreement on everything, but we do have an agreement. that agreement is that, let me yield to the leader, then, and i will continue my statement after hers. >> let me welcome the
distinguished majority leader, my fellow californian, back to the rules committee, and say that you should feel very at home. your book ended by paintings of the pacific ocean on my right and you are left, and the san valley.l we have cameras full-time and the rules committee now. we are very pleased to have you joining us. without objection, and a prepared statement will appear in the record in their entirety. we welcome your summary. >> thank you very much, members of the committee, for your leadership and dedication to bring in legislation. we are happy to be here. hello to chairman can not be -- chairman camp.
i extend my prayer is to that fine person. i hope that the passage of this legislation will contribute to that piece. i was listening attentively when i was in the room and when i was not as the distinguished chairman said -- there are cameras in the room. questions and observations being made by members and by the distinguished chairman and ranking member 11. -- 11. -- levin. people are sitting at their kitchen tables, having dinner, and part of what they will be talking about is how they are going to make ends meet. how do middle-income families in our country affect -- addressed the uncertainty they see in our
economy? as i listen to questions about growth -- i heard the chairman say that growth was so important -- i think it is important to go back to some of the history that mrs. foxx asked of mr. levin. in 1993, we passed a bill that increased taxes. we needed revenue. we needed growth. we needed to reduce our deficit. that is exactly what happened. there was an occasion where an increase in taxes created an atmosphere where the private sector could create over 20 million jobs. and take the deficit down to a place where it was on a trajectory to $5.60 trillion in
surplus, which was quickly turned round under president bush with the bush tax cuts and other things like the medicare drug abil and two on paid-for wars. -- un-paid =fpr wars. at $11 trillion swing. mr. hoyer knows these figures better than anyone. unheard of in our country. i referenced is here because you ask, but also because you are asking us to go right back to where -- how we got into this fix in the first place -- tax cuts at the height and which do not create jobs, which increase the deficit, and, on top of it, took us to the brink of recession and a meltdown of our
financial institutions. the lack of revenue that sprang from the financial institutions contributed to the deficit as well. that is where the deficit came from. tax cuts to the wealthy, medicare, wars, not down in the financial-services industry -- reductions in revenues coming to the treasury. disagreement on what supervision should have been there -- i do not think there is any disagreement in the fact that we all think that middle-income americans should have a tax cut. those making up to $250,000 a year should get a tax cut. if we just had we agree on -- people do not understand why you cannot do what we agree on and then continue the conversation on the rest. $250,000 -- what does that do? to order to give thousand
dollars and above -- you save -- $250,000 and above -- you save $1 trillion. or you borrow $1 trillion from the chinese and others in order to fund that debt. let's get back to that kitchen table. what does that mean to me if i am a middle-income person in our country? or a senior person trying to put families through school. the uncertainty as to their jobs, their income, whether they will be able to send kids to college, hold onto their home, the value of their pension -- it means everything. the uncertainty that is out there for the economy brings uncertainty to that kitchen table. in order to reduce the deficit, i believe you do have to have
growth. we want to watch our investments carefully so that they produce jobs, help create jobs, help the private sector create jobs. also that brings revenue to the treasury. 200 today thousand dollars a year -- -- $250,000 a year -- that is money they will spend. they will inject demanding to the economy. that will create jobs. jobs for them. what it also does is it takes $1 trillion that we do not have to further go into debt for and do not have to borrow from china and other lenders. it is hard to explain to anybody why we cannot agree on this. we also agree that we have to have tax fairness.
we have to address the tax code in a way that is bipartisan, non-partisan, really, and does the right thing. he has been such a champion on fiscal soundness, fair taxes -- fairness, that is really an issue for our country. it is the theme of america. the most enduring theme -- the american dream -- that is predicated on fairness and taking responsibility for each other from one generation to the next. i respectfully request your consideration of the alternative that ranking member levin presented earlier, which said that here is a place where we all agree -- we all agree. there has to be in middle-income tax cut. whatever else we have, we can continue that conversation, but do not hold the middle-income tax cut hostage for tax cuts to
that continue to inject uncertainty into the economy, which is not a healthy thing for the economy, businesses, and working families. it is a bill that the cbo says 97% of small businesses will not be effected by. even speaker boehner has conceded that point. people come up with that and say, we cannot get lower taxes. in any event, let's do what we all agree on. let's give middle-class families a break. the different -- a difference
between our two billols is as follows. this gives a tax cut to those making up to $250,000. under the gop plan, people making over $1 million a year -- if you made $1 million a year, you would get $160,000 on average a year in a tax break under the republican plan. in order to help pay for that, middle-income families would on average have to pay $1,000 more. not only are we borrowing to cover it, we are taking from the middle class to get this tax cut at the high end. it is just not fair. i urge your consideration of mr. levin, who spoke for what the
president is proposing. >> thank you very much for that. that nisei -- i do not know if you were here at the time. -- let me say -- i do not know if you were here at the time. i indicated that i will request -- this will be the first time since 1999, when i was in this chair, that the majority has provided the necessary waivers on a measure like this to about the minority to have a substitute. i request of this committee do that. >> thank you. do you think you can convince the democrats to join and provide that waiver? >> your very persuasive. >> mr. hoyer. >> [inaudible]
the issue in this presidential campaign -- the issue, which is very much related. [inaudible] adopting a bowles-simpson plan that would put us on a fiscally sustainable path -- i hope that we will do that in the lame- duck. i do not know that is possible, but i will work toward that end. secondly, i think that both want tax reform. if we are going to make it in america, we will make it in america -- it is profitable. regulations and taxes are items we need to address. we believe that the bill that we offered -- i thank you for making that order.
speaker boehner had indicated he would do that. we had a colloquy about that. i think that'll be an important debate. but i would urge my friends and the republican side to reflect upon the 1993 bill. that did, in fact, raise taxes on 1.5% of the highest earners, almost to a person -- mr. gaynor, mr. kasich, mr. armey -- that wehem said would explode the deficit and destroy employment and the economy by adopting that plan. exactly the opposite happened. we had a very robust economy. we created more jobs than any administration -- 22 million in eight years. for four years, we added nothing
to the national debt. the last four years the clinton administration. it was a combination of republicans and democrats working together. there were also some constraints that republicans gave and democrats gave on what we might do. the real issue is, how do we pay our bills? how'd we pay our bills? we can talk about taxes -- we incur obligations by buying things. we by social security, medicare, defense -- we have to decide how to pay for them. frankly, in the first part of the bush administration, you jettisoned pay-go. as a result, we did not pay for what we bought. as a result, the deficit was very substantially increased. by the way, as a percentage of gdp, you may be surprised to note that, during the four
years of the first bush administration, the national debt was increased by a higher percentage of the g.d.p. then it has been under mr. obama to date. in fact, under mr. reagan, the national debt increased by 189%, the highest of any president as a percentage of gdp. why? we did not pay for what we bought. that is our problem. that is the price of democracy, as some have said. here, we have agreement. amendment.u make the i'm glad to give the waiver is necessary. at least we ought to support that. we're offering a senate bill that will be signed by the president. we know it has to be an hr number.
but it is at least that -- for 90% of americans, we can give them -- 98% of americans, we can give them a sense of confidence that they will have the same revenues in the next year. in addition, we will not do what the republican bill does -- put less money in the pockets of 25 million americans. less money in the pockets of 25 million americans a pass the republican bill. that is not good for the economy. that is not good for confidence. that is not good for the image of congress in the united states that has an agreement on a central principle -- let us debate that which we do not agree on. let us take it to the american people. let us move forward on that on which we agree and give certainty to our people -- all of our people. 100% of our people will not have
any tax increase on the first to order tickets thousand dollars. >> thank you to both for being here. by virtue of sitting here, your testimony will evoke some response from members. so i'm going to ask you to come back as at that time beginning of the third vote because -- excuse me? >> well, let me say all time is expired. we're down to a few people not having voted on the house floor and we have a total of three votes. what i'm going to is recess the committee and then so it will just be about 15 minutes and then we'll come back and i know that based on this testimony there are going to be some questions. i understand that people have obligations. every member of this committee, by virtue of having testified can ask questions. i'm going is sk you to come back.
meeting stands in recess. >> the committee voted in favor of the rule for extending the bush era tax cuts. the full house will have one hour of general debate and 20 minutes of debate on a democratic substitute. on tuesday, mitt romney wrapped up his week-long foreign trip today in poland. we'll have these remarks from warsaw next on c-span and a gruche african-american pastors talk about their opposition to same-sex marriage. >> coming up at 10:00 a.m., the house armed services committee holds a hearing looking at the impact of se quest ration budget cuts on defense including civilian and military personnel. >> we did not begin as a any is kentucky. there was only a vague native
american region and later a county and another state called kentucky. but we began in 1778 as -- virginia. >> this weekend, join book tv, american history tv and c-span's local content vehicles from louisville, kentucky, saturday at noon eastern, literary life with book tv on c-span 2. biographer john david dike and mitch mcconnell and author jason ganus. sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, three weeks of farmington plantation in 1841 would be key on shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery. tour that plantation today. take a look back at the belle of louisville. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history and literary life in cities across america.
this week on louisville on c-span 2 and 3. >> next presidential account mitt romney delivers remarks in warsaw, poland. his trip began last week in london and he travelted to israel that last weekend before arriving in poland. this is 15 minutes. >> thank you very much for that very warm welcome to this great city. it has been a pri for me to meet with -- privilege for me to meet with the president and prime minister and foreign minister and former president. it is an honor to be in this place also. this is a nation with an extraordinary heritage that is crafting a remarkable future. at a time of widespread economic slowdown and stagnation, your economy last year outperformed all the other nations of europe. quite an accomplishment.
i began this trip in great britain and ended it here in poland. the two bookends of nato. history's greatest military alliance. it has kept the peace for over half a century. while i was at 10 downing street, i thought back to the day s of winston churchhill, who first spoke of the iron curtain that has descended across europe. what an honor to stand in poland among the me and women who helped lift that curtain. after that stay in england, i visited the state of his rail. a friend of your country and mine. -- of israel. far apart on the map. for an american, you can't get much closer to the ideals and convictions of our own country than you can in these places. our nation nations belong to the great fellowship of democracies.
we speak the same language of freedom and justice. we uphold the right of every person to live in peace. i believe it is critical to stand by those who have stood by america. solidarity was a great movement that freed a nation and it is with solidarity that america and poland face the future. yesterday i saw a memorial at wester plot and a gate at the shipyard. in both places, polish citizens stood with courage and determination against daunting odds. and today, on the eve of the 68th anniversary of this city's uprising against nazis, i will pay tribute at the monument to that historic struggle. over 200,000 po learn s were -- poles were killed in those weeks. but your enduring spirit, that survived.
free men and women everywhere, whether they have been here or not, already know this about poland. in some desperate hours in the last century, your people were the witnesses to hope. led onward by strength of heart and faith in god. not only by force of arms, but by the power of truth in villages and perishes across the land, you shamed the oppresser and gave light to the darkness. time and again, history has recorded the ascrept of liberty propelled by souls that yearn for freedom and justice. former secretary of state in the united states, condoleezza rice has noted that it is often one brave man or woman who says no to oppression. in doing so, sparks an evolution of courage for thousands or millions of others.
in my country, in 1955 rosa parks said no to a bus driver who told her to give up her seat to a white person. and in doing so, she started a revolution of dignity and equality that continues to this day. muhammad, a street vendor in tunisia was denied his business wear wares by a government -- and in protest committed suicide. with that act of defiance, the arab spring was born. nikolai sat before an audience of 200,000 recounting for them his supposed works on their behalf. one elderly woman shouted out what others only thought. liar! she said. others echoed her. first hundreds and then
thousands then tens of thousands. and with the fall of him days later, the entire nation had awake and the people were freed. here in poland in 197, a sovereign poland, pope john paul ii spoke words that would bring down an empire and bridge freedom to millions who lived in bondage. be not afraid, those words changed the world. i and my fellow americans are inspired by the path of freedom. tread by the people of poland. long before modern times, of course, the polish and american people were hardly stranges. the name pulaski is honored this day in america and so is memory of other poles who joined in our fight for our nation's independence. two years after our young republic gave the new world its first freely adopted written
constitution, they did the same with the preamble that called liberty dearer than life. at every turn in our history through wars and crises, through every change in the geopolitical map, we have met as friends and allies. s that true in america's evolutionary war and true in the dark days of the second world war and it has been true in iraq and afghanistan. there has never been a moment when our people felt anything but mutual respect and good will and that is not common in history. americans watched with astonishment and admiration as an electrician led a peaceful protest against a brutal and oppressive regime. it has to be understood, president walessa has recently said that the solidarity movement was very simple. when you can't lift a weight, you ask someone else for help and to lift it with you.
of course among the millions of pole who is said yes, there was one who has a unique and special place in our hearts. pope john paul ii. when he first appeared in the balcony, a correspondent to the scene wrote to his editor with a first impression. this is not just a pope from poland, he said, this is a pope from -- and in 1979, pope john paul ii celebrated mass with you in a square not far from here. he reminded the world that there would be no justice in europe without an independent poland and he reminded the polish people long deprived of that independence from where they drew their source of strength. while he was greeting a crowd along a fence, he met a little girl. he paused and asked where is poland. the little girl caught offguard
couldn't answer him. she laughed nervously until the great pope put his hand over her heart and said poland is here. john paul ii understood that a nation is not a flag. or a plot of land. it is a people. a community of values. and the highest value poland honors to the world's great fortune is man's innate desire to be free. unfortunately, there are parts of the world today where the desire to be free is with brutal oppression. just to the east of here, the people of belarus suffer turned oppressive weight of dictatorship. the arab world is undergoing an historic upheaval. one that holds promise but also risk and uncertainty. syria has killed thousands. this brutal dictator responsible for the lives of thousands of
his own people. in latin america, hugo chavez leads a movement characterized by authority airism and repression. in after ca, the threat of jihadism. in russia, advances toward a free and open society have faltered. in a turbulent world, poland stands as an example and defender of freedom. last mond in ga dank a sculpture was unveiled of ronald reagan. reagan should have a monument in every city. nowak recalled the days in 1981 when he, wa lesa and others were imprisoned by the communist regime. they learned that in the white
house, the president of the united states was lighting candles. it was a demonstration of unity. unity with them. a sign of solidarity. when reagan lit the candles, he recalled, we knew we had a friend in the united states. this is a country that made a prisoner a president. that went from foreign dom nation the proud, intonation you are today. and now for both of our nations, the challenge is to be worthy of this legacy as we find our way forward. the false gods of the all-powerful state claim the allegiance of a lonely few. it is for us to show all the world what free people and free economies can achieve for the good of all. perhaps because here and poland centralized control is no distant memory, you brought a
special determination to bring a prosperous economy. poland's economy was in a state of crisis but economists analyzed it from abroad. one heard talk of starvation but from the depths of those dark times, this nation's rise is an example of economic opportunity. you have moved from a state monopoly over the economy to a culture of entrepreneurship. greater fiscal responsibility and international trade. as a result, you have experienced positive growth in each of the last 20 years. in that time you have doubled the size of your economy. the private sector has gone from 15% of the economy to 65% today.
while other nations fell into recession, you have weathered the storm and continued to grow and flourish. when economists speak of poland today, it is not to lament chronic problems but to describe how this nation empowered the individual, lifted the heavyhand of government, and became the fastest-growing economy in all of europe. yesterday one of your leader shared with me in economic truce -- truth that has been lost in much of the world. he said this -- it is simple, you do not borrow what you cannot pay back. the world should pay close attention to the transformation of poland's economy. a march toward economic liberty has meant a march toward higher living standards, the strong military the defense home and abroad and an important and growing role on the
international stage. rather than heeding the false promise of a government-dominated economy, poland stouth expand trade, and live within its means. your success is a reminder that the principles of free enterprise can propel an economy and transform a society. it is such a time of difficulty and doubt throughout europe. poland's economic transformation is a fitting turn in the story of your country. in the 1980's when other nations doubt it political tierney could be overcome, the answer was look to poland. and today, the answer once again is, look to poland.
it is not surprising that a people that waited so long for the sake of liberty are enjoying it to the fullest. they have no greater friend and ally than the people of america. you helped us win our independence. your bravery inspired the allies in the second world war. you helped bring down the iron curtain. your soldiers fought side-by-side with ours in iraq and afghanistan. we have fought together, we have died together. we share a common cause. tested by time. inseparable by foe. in times of trouble, and in times of peace we march together. god bless you, god bless america, and god bless the great nation of poland. thank you so much. [applause] thank you.
>> the commission on presidential debates has scheduled three debates this fall. the first will take place on october 3 at the university of denver and focus on domestic policy. president obama and republican challenger mitt romney meet again at hofstra university in new york on october 16. the third and final presidential debate on foreign policy will take place on october 22nd at lynn university in boca raton, florida. >> a group of african-american pastors talked about their opposition to president obama's position on same-sex marriage. the coalition of african-american pastors have launched a marriage petition campaign. this briefing is about 35 minutes.
>> i want to thank all of you for coming out today. my name is william owens. i am standing with my wife and our baby, doctor deborah owens, my son, reverend william owens, and all of the pastures that are with us today. they came in support of our effort to save the family. that marriage should be between a man and a woman. the time has come by broad-based assault against the powers that
be that want to change our culture to one man marrying a man and women marrying women. we wrote the president and he -- mr. holder may 2, requesting an audience with him to discuss this very issue. he has not given us the courtesy of any reply. we consist of 3742 african-american pastors. and he has totally ignored us. he has not given us the pleasure of even answering our request, which is discourteous and unprofessional. first of all. also the president has ignored the black community because he feels he has us in his pockets. but we are not in his pockets and because his black, we refuse to give him a pass.
we will announce a program very soon called the mandate for marriage. i have asked my son out of los angeles, california to head that group. we are going across the country asking people to support us to save the family. with all of the challenges and the problems facing the african-american community, we are lowest in the scores of education of any group in america. we have fewer jobs. the prisons are full of african-american men. there are more men in prison than in college. go to any courtroom usa, each day, and you will see them full of black men on their way to prison.
but they have chosen something to cater to the homosexual community, to cater to hollywood, the big money people, they have chosen a course and ignored the people who put the president where he is. the president is in the white house because of the civil rights movement. i was a leader in that movement and i did not march 1 inch, 1 foot, for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman. the president has forgotten the price that was paid where people died, where they suffered, where they gave their blood to have equal rights in the united states. for the homosexual community and for the president to bow to the money, as judas did to jesus christ, it is a disgrace. as an example, some people are saying because of the position
chik-fil-a has taken, they do not want them in their cities. it is a disgrace. it is the same thing when they did not want a black person going into the restaurant, in their hotels. now they are say because we take a christian position, they do not want us in their cities. we will not take it. we will stand up and they will learn, they will learn that they cannot do that to any people by destroying religion, by destroying the family, it will not happen on our watch. we will stand up. [applause] so we must employ new methods. i started this mandate to protect the family. families of all colors.
mothers, how would you feel one year, 10 years, 20 years from now and that beautiful girl you reared comes and tells you, i want a wedding. father, i want a wedding. i want you to give me a wedding and she is going to marry a woman. your heart will be broken. think about what you are doing by giving the president a pass in this arena, in this fight by saying it is ok because we are black and you are black. mr. president, i am not going to stand with you. there are thousands of others that are not going to stand with you with this foolishness. [applause] so we would like to conclude by saying, bringing some more speakers up. we want people to go to our website,
100000signatures4marriage.com. 100000signatures4marriage.com. sign up with us to let the president know that he has not done a smart thing and it might cost him the election. he did it because of money and he thinks that there are more black people, there are more people that want marriage to be right, then there are homosexuals. i assure you, in this country. i think he is going to learn that lesson. we hope in the end, what do you hope to happen? i would hope that the president would become wise, come to his senses and to know he has made a mistake and we can come back together. the people who put him in office, come back together and admit he made a mistake. all people make mistakes. he has made a bad mistake that
will affect the history of this country. i am ashamed that the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful role. it is a disgraceful road that he chose, to endorse same-sex, it is unnatural. it is unscriptural. it is not natural for a man to have a man. if god had intended that, he would have created a third sex. he did not do that. we want the president to know we will oppose his position until the last stand. we will oppose his position. i would like to present with you my son who is going to head up our mandate campaign that we will start this week to get across the country and give people involved. just speak for a second. >> first of all, i want to thank
my dad for taking such a bold and historic position. i am proud to call him my father. i myself celebrate 27 years of marriage in october and that is to one woman at one time. we have four children. he has led by example and i thank god for that. i am excited about heading up the marriage for mandate. this mandate is designed to give people a chance to learn and express their values and why marriage is important to them. we will be taking this to the road and we will be teaching people the value of marriage and give people a chance to express why they believe as we believe. there will be more information coming. you can learn more at the marriage mandate.com. thank you. >> thank you, william jr.now we have the bishop janice hollis of philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> thank you, and good morning.
i'm really privileged to be here this morning with the coalition of african-american pastors. of course, and the presiding covenant fellowship in pennsylvania. i think this is a travesty in terms of the position our commander in chief has taken. i am really proud that doctor owens has started this mandate to call order to where we had this order in the highest office in the land. i am privileged to stand here with you to support you in whatever way that i can in pennsylvania, since pennsylvania is a swing state. the president needs to know he has demonstrated such a dereliction of duty. simply because he counted himself as a broad thinker, a person who could have a conversation with anyone, but yet he has chosen to overlook this intellectual body of black leaders.
we take great offense to that. he needs to know that he does not have a pass. we will hold him to the fire. at some point, you have to make it nope what you stand for. he has been all over the charts on many things. we know that this position is a political one and we are offended. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, dr. holli smp. now we call the bishop to the stand from los angeles, california. representing bishop george on our board. >> thank you, doctor owens. it is a privilege to be here. in order for us to understand what is taking place, we must define what marriage is. from a biblical point of view, the union of male and female
constitutes a marriage. between a husband and wife. the bible said that marriage is honorable with god. in genesis, god made in his creation order. he made things which were good. he made the light and said it was good. he made the water and said the water was good. he made the trees and the plant life and he said it was good. everything god made he said was good. when he got to man he looked at man and said, it is not good for man to be alone. i will make him a help meet. in genesis, he put man to sleep and took a rib out and made a woman. he did not make another man. he made a woman. man and woman can only, i repeat this, a man and woman can only
supply and fulfill the need that is lacking in each other. so same-sex marriage, it is impossible to fulfil the needs in each other. it might last for a while but to really fulfill that need that has planted in man, it has to be a man and a woman. jesus reiterated that in matthew when he said a man should cleave to his wife. that means male and female. it is impossible for a man to be a wife and a woman to be a husband. again, the book said, he should leave his father and mother and cleeve to his wife, not his partner, but his wife. and they shall be one. i am here to support this movement. thank you very much. if we do things the way that the bible guidelines, it will strengthen our family and not weaken our family. i believe same-sex marriage will weaken our family. thank you very much. god bless.
>> thank you, bishop. we also acknowledge bishop neil of germany. thanks, my friend. dean nelson has come in. another important point that needs to be made is, if you watch the men who have been caught having sex with little boys, you will note that all of them will say i was molested as a child. a man molested me in my home. wherever they were molested. for the president to condone this thing knowing the full facts is irresponsible. reverend dean nelson. >> good morning. my name is reverend dean
nelson. i serve as the chairman for the frederick douglass foundation. it is a christian organization that advocates righteousness and justice, liberty and virtue. doctor martin luther king jr. said that if the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it becomes an irrelevant social club. the challenge is whether or not we want to become that prevalent social club or if we want to capture the voice we once had. i stand today to reaffirm our position on traditional marriage. it is our belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. and the right of the marriage
should only be afforded to those for whom it was originally intended. he frederick douglass foundation was a participant in north carolina that helped to see large numbers of african-americans come to the polls and to affirm traditional marriage there in the great state of north carolina. wes will have plans throughout our 19 states that we have chapters to push and to challenge to the african-american clergy to stand for righteousness and justice and to affirm traditional marriage. just as in 1980, when the southern baptists had to relinquish their support for one of their own, jimmy carter, when he ran against, when he was serving as president, we are challenging the african-american community to reevaluate its support for president obama. this issue is more than politics. this is a moral issue that the
church must stand for and be clear about, not just for this generation but for generations to come. we believe that this election is a pivotal election. those who hold the bible as sacred and those black americans who are a part of the democrat party must reevaluate today whether or not they will stand for biblical principles over political policy. it is our hope that many within the black community will stand with the word of god, will stand with truth, and will become a strong, independent voice for the soul of america.
thank you. >> thank you. we want to make it very clear that we are not democrats and we are not republic. this is not a political party. this is not a platform. it is our conscience. one difference in the civil rights movement and the movement to endorse same-sex marriage is when we were in the civil-rights movement, most of us were very poor. but black people voted with their feet. they let their voice be heard in turned this country around. we are asking black america once again to step up to the bat and do what you need to do. we do not endorse a candidate. we do not say to vote for a certain person. we say vote for what is right. what is honorable and we do not want america to go down the drain starting on a slippery slope with the black president. it might look good today, he might be famous today, he might
be popular today but when your children come and tell you they are going to marry a person of the same sex, you are going to be very happy and you are going to be angry that you bit into the big lie. thank you very much. if there are any questions, i'm available. >> president obama doesn't change his stance, is the coalition of african-american pastors ready to support candidate mitt romney? >> we are not going to support any candidate. that is not our role. we are not political. we are going to let our mission to be known. keeping marriage between a man and woman. we are not going to get into the politics of it. we have a social issue. that we're going address but not get into the political realm. >> what about your critics? people who are against the gay marriage and the administration says it is a matter of homophobia and bigotry if you do not support people being able to love to they want to love.
>> that's a very good question. i'm going to answer it very honestly. what if i called them sissies and all of the other names i could call them? we do not do that. we are not that. we stand for what we stand for. do not put names on me if you do not want them on you. >> what is god's position on polygamy? >> this is not about polygamy. >> i need for you to define the biblical definition of marriage. >> a marriage between a man and woman. i am not going to get on another track. >> talk to me about abraham's marriage. >> madame, next question. >> what is god's position on polygamy? >> are you going to demand that i answer your question? this is not about polygamy. this is about same-sex marriage.
>> reverend, you said you would answer questions about marriage. >> in your remarks, you said that president obama ok's molestation of children. >> i did not say that. >> i can quote you right now. >> let me clear that up. for him to condone same-sex marriage is the road to homosexuals being more able to do it. i have never said that president obama condones sex with a man bothering a boy. >> do you see a -- >> a correlation, absolutely. he is trying to make legal what is wrong. there is a correlation. there is absolute correlation.
if you really know where this is going, they are just opening the gate. there will be many more challenges facing our families if this stands. in every state this has been on the ballot, in every state where it has been on the ballot, we have won. people like the president and others have chosen to take over and not done with the people wanted. they have not won in one state. >> can you explain how there is a difference between homosexuality and civil-rights? >> there is no comparison. when i was a boy you couldn't drink out of a white water fountain. you could not go to white restaurants.
you could not go to a white hotel. they have never been denied those rights. never. they do everything. we feel they should have the best jobs, the best of everything, but not marriage. >> i am wondering how you respond black clergy and christian groups who think there is more than one issue to consider. they say they agree with obama on other issues. >> i might agree with him on other issues also but there is not one issue more important than holding the family together. it does not matter if you have a lot of money, and if your family is destroyed, what does it mean? >> in a recent survey, 18% said same-sex marriage is a critical issue. do you think this issue is something that african-americans can get behind even the numbers
say it is not in the top five? >> i think so. that is why we are going across the country. the same question was asked of the civil rights movement. i was a junior pastor and we went to a restaurant. we had to go to the back door. and carry the food out. the pastor stood in that back room where we were waiting for our food and said your grandchildren will never be able to go into the front door of the restaurant. seven years later we were going into the front door. we can make a difference if we join together. >> you would like to see that 18% of african-americans become higher. >> absolutely. i know it is possible. we are going to work very hard. >> why is it not the case now? >> we have not been out there
doing what we are doing. >> is the community not aware of this? this is against their values and you need to go explain that? >> every time it has been voted on, the african-american community has voted against it. in every state. no exception. but i think that african-american community must be aware of the damage. i think they are looking at the fact that he is black, really have a black, half white, they are looking at that instead of what he is doing. he has ignored us. he has ignored the black preachers. he has ignored the black press. when the civil rights movement was going on, most white presidents were against us. he has ignored them. he does not come to our conventions. he did not go to the naacp convention. he did not go to the ame
convention but he goes to anything they want. because he has those locked up. he does not have us locked up. we're going to voice that. >> between 73% and 79% of african-american children are born out of wedlock, depending on which studies you're looking at, which year it is. do you feel that the reason for such high out of wedlock births is because the family has fallen apart because of gay marriage? >> not because of gay marriage. one reason is we tolerate it. we do not teach against it. i have a baby and a mother could have had an abortion. she did not have an abortion. she wanted us to be the parents instead of our gross having -- girls having born out of wedlock, we have addressed this that black menaces must get up and say if you do not want the baby, there is somebody else who will love the baby.
our baby has been the joy of our life. >> can you talk about what you're coalition is doing to encourage black men to maintain the heads of their household and not leave their children? >> absolutely. i am glad you asked that question. i know what can be done to the black community. i started this ministry, the way i built my nation was getting black young men in college and some out of prison. in four years, we put four hundred black students in a predominantly white university. they had 5%. when we left, they had 22%. these boys were on the fringes. some had been to prison. we walked to one young man at of prison who had served and was in
court on another case. we convinced the judge to release him and the judge to sentence to that young man to a degree from the university. yes, it can be done and we plan to do it and the black preacher has to do more than just talk about this. he has to talk about the home, he has to get into the community and love those girls, love those famies. he has a great responsibility. >> what about civil unions? there are people who say it is not marriage. >> it is not different. >> how we intend to take the marriage mandate is to do just that. part of the purpose of the mandate is not just to expose the wrong but to celebrate the right. part of the purpose is to equip those marriages and bring out the beauty of marriage. that is one reason for the mandate.
>> can you talk about, how many signatures have you gotten? when did you start? how far along are you on that? >> i do not have that number. we give out our website, so there are several thousands. my wife keeps a count of that. i do what i do. >> can you give us details about the mandate project? what are you guys going to do? how big of a budget? are you going to rundraise for this? for rundraise for this?
>> we just started. we have our first fund-raiser august 16. we just started. but we are going to go nationwide with that agenda, just like the president has gone to hollywood. we are going to people who support us, whether they be $1, $1,000, we are going to ask for support because we need money to take this agenda nationwide. i will take one more question. >> can you tell us your affiliation? the mention being a part of a larger church body. can you explain what your affiliation is, please? >> i am a member of the church of god in christ. >> in your remarks, he said this is not a political of bent but in the press releases as you are looking to -- 98 days until the election, i clearly this is not a political backing. -- vacuum. can you tell us, who supported the president in 2008? did any of you support the
president in 2008? >> i think most of us did. >> to do specifically? >> i did. yes. >> can the others respond? >> would you like to respond? >> i would be happy to respond. did not support the president but we have a grass roots efforts in north carolina where we have large numbers of people who supported the president but have withdrawn their support. >> are you talking about people who are not going to vote because of this issue for the president? >> for us, our challenge really is to ask black americans to withhold their support, particularly those who are christians. however, as he may have noted, in north carolina there was a poll this show that 20% of black americans said they were going to support governor romney. that was not an initiative we were pushing but there was a poll this show that 20% of black
>> we just have individuals. all the nominations. catholics, baptists, you name it. all denominations and groups. when you start going to the heads of the denominations, you get into the political. >> when is your first event? you say you're going across the nation. >> ok. thank you. >> i asked you before, maybe you could answer it. the point i was making is if you talk to people in the administration, they say people who are against this, they do not talk about it -- they are homophobes. they are bigots.
you have had homosexuals since the beginning of time. we're against institution of marriage changing. >> ok. thank you. >> coming up at 10:00 a.m., the house armed services committee holds a hearing looking at the impact of se quest ration budget cuts on defense. including cuts on military and civilian personnel. see it live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> at the foot of that bridge, i was beaten. i thought i was going to die. i thought i saw death. >> in 1965, a 25-year-old john lewis took part in a voting rights march from selma to montgomery, alabama, on a route that would take them across the
edmond pet tiss bridge. >> a man identified himself and said i'm major john -- with the alabama state troopers. this is an unlawful march and it will not be allowed to continue. one of the young people walking beside me said -- and the major said troopers advance. >> across that brirges author and congressman john lewis sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q & a. >> coming up next, a discussion on business government and lobbying. from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes.
>> tell us why you did the survey. >> most of our organizations are fortune 500 companies. we do not lobby. we have 600 member organizations ranging from chevron to the minnesota vikings to the mayo clinic. i do not have to get them to agree on anything. the real research has been done on american attitudes about business in society. if you look at other polls historically, people have asked if ceos and generally make too much money in the answer is generally yes. we wanted to drill down and get a sense in what americans expect from companies and government. host: let's start with the people's views on big business. what did you find? guest: we did the survey for the first time last year and this is our second one. initially, my expectation was
that people would not have a positive attitude towards big business. what you see in the media is fairly negative. but this year, 67%, 2/3, at least had a somewhat favorable view towards big business. last year it was 61% so it actually increased. host: federal government is the other side of the coin. guest: government did not do as well. we are down in the 40% range in terms of a general favorable feeling about the government and its role. small-business does extremely well. this country loves small business. small business got a score of 88% on the favorability scale. host: do the changing attitudes have something to do with the ongoing presidential campaign? guest: i'm not sure. the fact that the economy got a
bit better over the last year may have helped. the public is extremely critical of all major institutions including the news media, government, and business. small business, i think people are favorable good times and bad. host: everyone likes the mom and pop shops. guest: it is always in the political ads featuring small businesses. that is what resonates with just about all americans of every political stripe. host: we will take you through some of the themes of the public affairs council survey. added to done is -- attitudes on big business. if you want to talk about any of these issues with mr. pinkham. the numbers are on your screen. we will go to one of the independent scholars now from minnesota this morning.
thank you for calling in. you are on with mr. pinkham. caller: i did hear the gentleman say that his organization was non-partisan. however, everyone in this country is either a democrat, republican, or independent, or even green party. the majority of his company, are the majority independence? i would feel more comfortable if everyone in his organization were independent.
>> to the question of the work of the assistance that we have provided and will be providing in a lesser amount going forward, i understand very well that this entails sacrifice on the part of all of our taxpayers. but it has produced results and will continue to produce results. these of the efforts of security and the efforts they are increasingly taking on insecurity.
afghanistan is a very poor country. under the best of circumstances, it would still be in very poor country with tremendous problems. our work in development assistance is part of our campaign to prepare and afghanistan which can stand on its own feet in a way that it has stability that is sustainable over time, and this goes to the point that the senator raised about what our enduring vital interest is in afghanistan. >> i do not mean to interrupt. i wanted to hear you go on at length, but here is my problem. i understand the goals, but we have an administration and and afghanistan that is significantly corrupt.
we have an administration in afghanistan that we see has wasted amounts of money. so if afghanistan is going to be a ward of the united states for over a decade, and we are going to spend $90 billion and maybe more, at least, at least there should be a expectation that there should be greater transparency, greater efficiency, less corruption, and unless there are benchmarks to do that, i do not see how in fact we can continue to make this long term, open-ended commitment without a concurring response, and i know, you know, that there are some responsibilities because we went in there, but by the same token, there are responsibilities by the afghan government to be responsive, transparent, honest, and more efficient, and i just do not get the sense that we accomplish those goals and as much as giving money.
if there is a strong commitment here, not here for us to give, but for us to get, at the end of the day. would it be my understanding that that is going to be part of your drive year? >> absolutely. i have been in afghanistan for the past year, and it is, as he knows, it is a daily part of not just our business with the afghan government but everybody's business with the afghan government, and one of the key outcomes of the series of international meetings that i discussed earlier, especially the tokyo conference, is putting clearly on the record that there is precisely this expectation on the part of the people who are supporting afghanistan who want to support afghanistan, but we need to see that real progress is being made,
particularly when dealing with corruption and governance issues, and what is called the mutual accountability framework, there are specific things laid out better expectations that the government will address, and as we speak, my eight colleagues still in kabul are looking at these going forward, and it is very much the things you say, greater transparency, greater accountability. we are doing that internally in our own processes to make sure we know where american assistance is going and what it is being used for, and we will absolutely be insisting that the afghan government produce greater transparency and accountability. >> mr. chairman, i see the time, but i have one more question, if i may? for myself, i have been
supportive, but it is not open ended support, speaking as one member. i have to see the movement towards those elements, and, you know, i cannot continue at a time when we face such enormous challenges here at home to vote for billions of dollars that at the end of the day do not lead towards a more open, transparent, on this process, at a minimum, at a minimum. >> i understand. >> in a similar light, senator corker and i have a while back looked for some benchmarks as it relates to our assistance with the support funds to pakistan. you know, in my view, it is incongruent to provide enormous
sums for the pakistan military for the coalition's support funds unless we are certain that the pakistan these are willing to locate and dismantle terrorist threat within its border. my understanding is that this new deal that we have cut with pakistan to cut the transport of the military supply convoys also promises to deliver more than $1 billion in delayed military aid -- what process are we getting in return beyond the convoy to a commitment that the pakistan military is committed to ceasing to support terrorist and extremist groups and promoting the taliban and al qaeda and other terror groups working in the area of pakistan. all i hear is them seeking an end to the drone attacks, the one successful effort in turning it over to them. again, if we're going to be providing billions of dollars, then what is the commitment, the concurrent commitment here?
>> thank you, senator. excellent question. with regard to the coalition's support funds, as you know, this is a reimbursement for expenses incurred in support of coalition activities, and my understanding of the process is that the pakistan is submit certain expenditures for our review, and we review them very carefully and do not in any way accept all of those expenditures. in other words, we are very careful to make sure of our own standards and our own criteria. the support for counter- terrorism, the record of the
last decade shows that we have had substantial cooperation from the pakistan is on the question of al qaeda in particular. we are in the grasp of defeating al qaeda as an organization. a lot of that, as president obama indicated, is due to support from the pakistan government. in addition, the pakistan government is concerned about the internal threat from insurgents and extremist organizations. the pakistan army has been
effectively redeployed. many of the units that have been on the border have been redeployed internally. they are dealing with the threat coming from extremists. on the question of drones, senator, as you well know, the president has said that we will go after extremists. there is a threat wherever we find them. it is beyond a level of classification for this hearing to discuss those in any great detail, but if it is confirmed, to continue to follow the president's direction on the question of defending our national interests. >> i take it what you are telling me is you are satisfied? >> senator, i think that there is more that can be done, absolutely. i think that particularly with
regard to the county network, and this is a very difficult issue. i am coming at this as having served. for the last year, i was on the embassy on the days that been attacks took place, from the county network out of waziristan. we are looking at all of the ways that we can as a whole of the u.s. government attack the question of the network and the support we of already designated a number of individuals. i will, if confirmed, take it as an urgent responsibility and the most urgent of my responsibilities to press the pakistan as for more information on the network in every way possible.
>> thank you, senator menendez. we are at the end of the hearing. we want to thank both of our witnesses for their testimony and for your continuing commitment to public service, particularly with these difficult postings, and we again think your families. it will be open until noon time tomorrow for the senators to submit their questions, and unless there is anything further, we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up next, the house rules committee debates tax cuts. on this morning's "washington journal" we would get an update on the texas gop right off. we'll talk about gun violence. >> coming up at 10:00 a.m., the
house armed services committee holds a hearing looking at the impact of sequestration budget cuts on defense, including cuts to military personnel. seeing -- see it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was only a native american region and later a county in another state called ky. but we began in a 1778 as louisville, virginia. >> join book tv and c-span's local content vehicles in louisville, ky. the biographer on mitch mcconnell and on rebuilding american politics -- the american revolution. three weeks at farmington
plantation in 1841 would be key in shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery. to were the plantation today. take a look back. once a month, c-span explores the history across america. this weekend, from louisville on c-span2 and three. >> now, the house rules committee considers debate rules for extending bush-era tax cuts and changes to the tax code. this portion of the hearing is one hour 45 minutes. >> this meeting will come to order. we are waiting on a member. someone was supposed to be here, and that was eight minutes ago, so we are anxiously awaiting his arrival, and we are
considering two measures, hr 8 and hr 6189. before we began, i would like to note that celeste west has for a quarter of a century served on the rules committee staff and will be heading into a well-deserved retirement. everybody here knows your knows that she has tried to ensure that everything runs smoothly up here. it is thanks to her. in fact, she makes sure the cell phones never go off, among other things. that is one of her responsibilities, but i want to wish celeste well and say congratulations and thanks for your many, many years of service to the rules committee. [applause]
>> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? if i may? i would like to take a moment to add to your best wishes for celeste. i would like to do that, as well. we are going to miss her terribly. i always feel bad when that much institutional memory leads the rules committee. >> thank you, celeste, very much. why do we not proceed? again, we're waiting for the arrival of the chairman of the ways and means committee. we have the ranking member, my good friend, mr. levin, here, and we will go to the chairman when he arrives. >> hello, everybody. let me make a couple of points. first of all, i would ask for this committee to provide a
world that would have my amendment which substitutes hr 8 and provides the necessary waivers. i think you know the republican leadership -- i hope the committee will make good on that promise. last week, the speaker said, and i quote, "if my democratic colleagues want to offer the president's plan or the senate democrats' plan, we are more than happy to give them the votes," and then last week, between our minority whip and mr. cantor, mr. cantor said this. "mr. speaker, i will send it back to the gentleman. we do expect and our intention is for your tax to be made into rule.
i do not know how many more times we have to say that the speaker has always represented that we are going to work towards an open process." ok. i will be closer to the mike. it is not very loud. >> please, please, please. >> let me welcome the chairman of the ways and means committee year and first say that we are thrilled to have you before the rules committee, and we know you are going through some health challenges now, as you and i spoke about over the weekend, and i know that i speak on behalf of the democrats and republicans and the full house that our thoughts and prayers are with you. mr. levin just began with a request that we would be able to
make an order in this committee, and that is a desire for the first time since 1999 when our party was last in the majority to provide waivers, so it has been a longtime cents a substitute on a bill like this has been made, an order providing the necessary waivers for this, and it is true i am going to ask the committee to do this. >> thank you for your comment. earlier today. >> well, thank you. >> is your microphone on there? >> i think it is. it may be déjà vu, but we do not have to do the same thing all over again. this year is the third time in five years that the court tax rates on individuals or investment incomes are set to expire. that is no way to run a country, and it is certainly no way to run an economy, and while congress -- we should take the opportunity to finally get serious about tax reform that makes the code simpler and fairer.
it leads to the creation of 1 million jobs in the first year alone. h.r. 8 provides an extension of what was enacted in 2001 and 2003 and extended again in 2010, in support with many democrats and president obama. the reason we acted then to extend those policies, and the reason we should extend these rates again now is simple. jobs. just like two years ago, the economy remains weak, with the economy at or above 8% for 41 consecutive months.
as the president said, you do not raise taxes in a recession, and that is a quote. the budget office indicates that these budget issues along with what constitutes the fiscal cliff that we face this year could cost america between 2 million to 3 million jobs, and if we only do some, as some of our colleagues and said, we will still lose a lot of jobs, according to ernst and young. middle-class families cannot afford any more job losses. this is not just my perspective. it is the perspective of many small-business owners, like one in ohio. in recent testimony before the house ways and means committee, he talked about the raising taxes, saying that this leads to a loss in investment and jobs. the last thing congress should
do right now is raise taxes on small manufacturers just as we are rebounding from a devastating recession. president obama and some propose to do exactly that by calling for the expiration of the bush tax cuts on household incomes over $250,000 per year. those in the top brackets, it is a direct tax increase on manufacturers like me. we should also look at what is needed to help the economy. republicans want to adopt a fast-track process. the pathway to job creation, with a simpler and fairer act, h.r. 6169, this forces congress to do a commitment that provides the certainty that taxpayers need to make a plan and the job creators need to make investment and hiring decisions. independent economists have predicted that common sense tax reform policy, included in the last two house-past budgets will lead to a creation of 1 million jobs in the first year.
mr. chairman, this boils down to two different visions. do we want to raise taxes and destroyed over 710,000 u.s. jobs, or do we want to make the tax code simpler and fairer and create more than 1 million jobs for american workers? i welcome the opportunity to discuss this. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. levin has discussed his request to make a substitute order, as i just said. i am hoping very much this committee will do that. as i said, it will be the first time since 1999 that waivers have been provided, which is a long time. we have provided the request, and i hope we can ensure that
the proposal that you put forth to bring to us will be made an order. >> thank you very much. i trust all of you will proceed along that line. so let me just -- >> it depends on how compelling your arguments are right now. >> you have already committed yourselves. >> i am just one member of the committee. i have no idea what the committee will do. >> i will make it very short. i will go on to another point. i wonder if anybody has any question about the substitute. i will then now go on. >> and now you are going to go on. you are going to buy it back. from detroit, i have always heard the term not to buy it back after you have sold it.
>> so let me just add, there is considerable uncertainty in our economy. i think the agreement today, i think it was today, in terms of leadership in terms of the resolution, essentially extending the appropriations, it is a step in the right direction in terms of producing uncertainty. another way to do that it is to pass my substitute. everybody agrees that we should continue the middle class tax cuts. i think there is very broad
agreement. there is disagreement beyond that. we should take the areas of agreement this week. every taxpayer would receive a tax break if we extend the middle income tax break, including those above the level. in fact, they would receive a larger continue tax cut than those who earn under $250,000. the question is whether the middle class tax cut is going to be held hostage to what was presented, which will result in a tax cut for people earning over $1 million. that is basically the issue, and so i urge very much that
there be an end to the uncertainty as to middle-class tax cut this week before we go home. i could add other comments. i very much disagree with his wife claim about 700,000 jobs or whatever it is. i also want to mention that the two bills combined essentially would add a tax cut to millionaires. 39 gord $30,000. and it would increase taxes on millions of american families. three provisions would either be eliminated or eliminated altogether. so i have a different take on that. an important step towards doing that is to allow the substitute that i introduced which the leadership. thank you very much.
>> thank you very much. it is great to have you both here. i think it is a very clear and apparent decision that we as members will make. we want to have a free-flowing debate on the floor. we have the alternatives. so i have no questions for you other than to congratulate you. mr. sessions? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome to both of you to the rules committee, the most important opportunity for both sides to tout their ideas. i know there might be some questions, at least as pertains to the ranking member about the numbers. the long run economic impact for 2013, which is essentially
the democratic bill combined with what the democrats in the house what to do, and there is a conclusion that is drawn literally on the first page. it says, among others things, that this will harm the economy. can you provide me your ideas about what you think of, including using this report, and any other data that you may have? >> we actually have had hearings on this in committee as well, and the reason is that pass through entities, which is
what most are now in america, and they are not c corporations, they are passed through corporations, and you can say that they are rich because as couples, they have incomes above $250,000. they are not all getting salaries. we know that half of the business income will be impacted at that level, and that is why there will be an impact on the economy, and that is why ernst and young said it would be that many jobs. there was someone you testified about that in front of the committee. there is a lot of, you know, about millionaires and billionaires, and i would just ask all of my colleagues to talk about what is fair. the top percentage are already pay more than 50% of all of the income taxes. should that being a 75%? when is enough enough, and what will washington do with the
money? are they planning to pay down the debt with it, or will the money be wasted on more government spending? i think we all know what will happen. the truth is that the bottom line, the tax increases will the story about 700,000 american jobs. what we want to do with this bill is to extend current law and not give a tax cut to anybody, as my friend from michigan says. we are not cutting anybody's taxes. we are extending this or one- year to get the tax reform we know this country needs so we can begin to build an economic recovery and get people back to work. we are complaining that unemployment is too high. the right tax plan can do that. we will then bring it to the form with a series of deadlines. this is one year to get certainty.
i know many of us have been visited by employers, wondering what is going to happen, and this will provide now, before we get into october, certainty that we actually have a plan to address the difficult economic problems facing our country. i want america to be the number one economy in the world again. i want us to be the economy leading the world, and one when we can do that is what proper tax reform. >> i would allow him to make any comments that he chooses. yes, sir? >> let me just mention the tax. 97%. that is one of the flaws in this argument about the necessity of extending the high- income tax cut.
jobs. the ernst and young study is otherwise flawed. it does not assume that any of the money that would be received by not extending the high-income tax would be used. that is a $49 billion difference between the two bills in terms of deficit increase. that is the difference between extending the high-income tax cuts and doing that for middle- income families. i want to mention one other fact. in 2011, 93% of the income growth in this country went to the top 1%. so in terms of economic growth as well as equity, in terms of certainty, i want to emphasize
this, there is so much talk about certainty. why leave here without extending it? widely here and talk about tax reform? most of the tax-reform proposals are only generalities, including the bill that has been introduced here, and essentially doing what was suggested there, having a reduction of two tax brackets, 25% and 10%, for upper-income families, millionaires, an additional $300,000 in a tax cut. the middle-income families want us to do that. >> i will answer that question since you asked the question. we know that since president obama has taken office that the income from americans has fallen $2,400 per family. >> how much did it fall under his predecessor?
>> you know what, i will tell you he had 60 straight months of economic growth, but what i would say to you is that we were asked about this model -- it sounds like you are trying to tell us to just do this without the job benefit. this is where republicans and democrats do differ, because we are after job growth. i note that following the enactment of tax relief in 2003, the amount of revenue, collected by the american government went up by $700 billion over five years, and the deficit went down. is that because what republicans did was, quote, a jobs growth package? is that what you are trying to do here? >> that is the pro-growth model.
working their way into the rationale. the american people what to do that. it has been far too long a discussion. we are looking at really strong head winds. projected earnings. many companies around the world. we need really to put this country back in a leadership position. >> it seems like, of what you're talking about, the momentum, is jobs.
job creation and the opportunity for people to have jobs. mr. chairman, to put in the record, the ernst and young reports. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me echo what the chairman said. but i am going to argue with you just a bit. >> ok. >> not trying to do anything about the deficit, it was vice president cheney under george w. bush. i would doubt any democrat that i have ever heard about that said the deficit did matter. we really have to clean that up. the problem with the bush tax
cuts is that they do not work. one decade ago, we promised that all of these jobs were going to be created and everything was rosy. 23 million jobs. cutting the deficit to almost nothing. it was really quite remarkable. where are those jobs? that we were supposed to have created under the bush tax cuts? we're in worse shape and have been in since the great depression. i hope everybody does it really agree that we need this amendment, because i really would like to see. i am not getting any great outcry at home even from millionaires. the corporations, let me see if i have these statistics. corporations not paying their
fair share. here we are. 1500 americans that earn more than $1 million in federal income. going offshore, hiding money away to save on taxes, but 30 profitable fortune 500 companies pay no taxes, not a dime between 2008 and 2010. i think it is time they did. what sums this up is it has created a serious revenue shortage in the country. i do not have any questions of either of you, but i would like to put that statement in. just to comment on one paragraph here. the present is strongly in favor of tax reform.
bipartisan individual reform that would lower the tax rate. cutting the deficit. the democrats care about that a lot. making the tax code more fair. those are democrat principles that we talked about last week. they believe what this would do to the average american family would be very -- would be pretty devastating. it would be an increase for most of them. i agree with you. i want this economy back. but even in our heyday when we were the best manufacturer in the world, we never did destroy the middle class, and that is happening now under these tax cuts. more than anything in the world, i want us to be fair
again and give everybody an opportunity. that is what this does not do. we are putting more and more people in precarious situations where we wonder if they will be able to survive. it would seem that the advisers would recommend that you veto it. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have been listening very closely to our two presenters here tonight. i wanted to ask if he might expand a little bit on some comments he has made and then take a slightly different tack. you quoted the president as saying two years ago, "you do not raise taxes in an economy."
do you have any insight at all as to why the economy, in worse shape than it was two years ago, why in the world the president would want to increase taxes now and how in the world could that possibly help the economy now if it would not help the economy two years ago? >> well, the last three deficits have been unprecedented degree of the debt as a percentage of our economy is no more than all of our economy, and it has been a problem, but it has become a much worse problem, and then with the difficult economic problems in europe, as well, i think that this is a search for more revenue. now, the problem is we really need to get the economy moving again and really gain the trust of the american people back. for middle-class americans, they need a job.
the reason the american middle class has taken such a hit, that is where much of the job loss has been, and while the published rate is around 8% nationally, we all know the effective rate is higher, because so many people have left the work force. we are going to get another jobs report. we have seen successive quarters downgraded. if we can get to a pro-growth tax policy in a revenue neutral way so we can really get the kind of job creation that we had estimated, 1 million jobs in the first year versus 700,000 lost if we take the approach democrats are suggesting, and if we can get people back to work, that is one thing we can do to begin to solve our fiscal problem. >> excuse me, mr. levin. if i can follow up with mr. camp a little bit. if you could, i do not know how many people are observing this,
but i suspect most americans have not had a course in economics. most americans do not understand a lot of basic economics, although they do understand they are hurting right now, and they are frustrated. they want their government to do something. hard working americans have played by the rules, and all they want is jobs. say again what you said a minute ago, because i think it is worth repeating, what our deficit and debt are compared to our gdp. i just think, and particularly if you want to refer to what is happening in europe, i mean, again, what i know about this, i read in the materials we are
given, but i know we are not in very good shape. if you could repeat those things and say a little more. >> part of what you said, the economics, it is not only where you are but the trajectory, where you are going to be, and with excessive deficits of over $1 trillion three years in a row and the debt to dramatically increase in, the number of $15 trillion, $16 trillion, it is now more than all of our economy, and when you look at the nations that are in trouble, and, of course, we had testimony, and experts came before the committee and said when your debt gets to that level, you are taking about one percentage point off of your country's economic growth, and that in america is about 1 million jobs, so part of getting our economy moving again is not only creating the jobs that would come from tax reform but also from lessening the amount of debt in relation to our economy. >> excuse me again, mr. levin.
when people ask me or say to me, they say all of the time, "you republicans are one-note people. you just do not want to raise taxes." that is what we hear from republicans. why do you not come up with something new? people say that in a critical way. we have not had any new ideas. but one of my responses to them is we know that the proposal to raise taxes on only the wealthiest people in this country will not stop, and it does not answer the problem. when you say something or a little bit about, again, the trajectory that we are facing right now in terms of where we are going?
it is my understanding, and, again, i am not as factual with the numbers as you are, not being on the committee, but it is my understanding that even if we did what the president is asking us to do and what the colleagues on the other side of the aisle are asking us to do, this only reduces the deficit by about 10% to 12% over the next 10 years, and it is only 2% of the new spending or the spending that the president wants, and he wants to add, if i understand it right, $10 trillion to the national debt. again, i know people watching this or listening to this, we do not want to throw out so many numbers that people cannot follow it, but i think it is important that we explain to the american people that raising taxes is not the answer to our situation, that cutting
spending at the federal government level, or at least that is what i have always understood. can you explain that in layman's terms? >> the impact is it is not as significant as one might think, but the potential injury to job creation is at least 700,000 jobs. if we do not stop the tax hike, it could be 2 million, 3 million. so we really do need to address this. i also think it is just a critical to think of the countries in europe. we know the preview. they let their debt become out of control in relationship to their economy, and we have done the same thing, and the simpson- bowles the same thing. how much your economy is growing. if we could add 1% to that, it would be jobs. also, we would see 1 million jobs created.
this is something that has been in our budget for two years. we have had many meetings. many corporations and businesses have commented that they are willing to give up certain tax preferences like research and development in order to get the lower rate. the low rate does not come with no changes. and, of course, exactly what those are our for congress to determine, and this will ultimately come if we are successful in getting the one- year extension, moving into a debate about tax reform. this is something that there will be a senate and a house
bill, and we will need to move forward in a bipartisan way in order to accomplish this. >> thank you very much, mr. camp. mr. levin, i want to ask you one question, and i know you want to say something else, but i would appreciate it before you say something else that you answer my question. where do we get evidence that raising taxes helped the economy grow? do you have any evidence of that in the history of this country, we're raising taxes helped the economy? >> the answer is i voted for a bill when president clinton was president that raised taxes and the economy grew. so you do not have to go back very many decades. secondly --
>> how long did it take for that to happen, and what was happening with spending at that time? >> the president proposed and i voted for was a balanced package of tax cuts and cuts in programs. and that is the basic issue before this country and the united states of america. and that is you want more revenues, as was true previously, or cutting spending, or do you simply want to say no revenue, but the position of the republican party is no more revenues, and -- >> excuse me just a moment. if i just understood you, that is not the position of the republican party, ok? >> there will be more revenue.
>> there will be revenue. >> but not more taxes. claiming that growth creates revenues, and that was the mythology of the bush years. and, by the way, it is not correct to say that the economy is worse today than it was two years ago. that is not correct. you said that. the economy is not worse. the unemployment rate is going down. not as much as it should. in the last three years, several million jobs have been created. the first month of the obama presidency succeeding the bush administration, we lost 700,000 jobs in one month, one month. >> mr. levin, who was in charge of congress at that time? who was in charge of the congress? who was in charge of the congress? >> that first month? we were. >> meaning? >> democrats. that was the first month after
years of the bush administration. it is also not correct to simply throw out europe. this administration did not follow the policies of europe, and that was austerity without growth. it combined austerity and growth, and therefore, we are in better shape than europe. not as good, but better shape, and let me say one last thing. there is a difference of $50 billion between the republican bill tax cuts and the substitute. $50 billion in one year. i find it ironical that they would say that. we could go on, and i welcome this opportunity. i just want to reiterate.
you asked about evidence for raising taxes. yes. i voted for it. there is no evidence whatsoever that extending the high-income tax cut will promote growth. >> mr. camp, i think he wanted to respond >> well, i think it is important to say that you do not want to leave less for investment, and raising taxes leaves less for investment and job creation and growth that follows that. the only way to say that we get revenue is in a zero-sum game is i think the wrong approach. there has been a lot of work done on moving towards a system that will create more than 1 million jobs in the first year alone rather than costing 700,000 jobs by raising taxes.
that is the choice. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i do not have any questions. the minority whip -- are here. i want to say something to the gentle lady. she stated that most americans have not taken a course in economics as if most americans to understand. the reality is most americans get it. i the most americans believe you do not have to agree on everything to agree on something, and we also agree that we should extend the tax cuts for those earning $250,000 or less. whether you are donald trump or whatever. i think the american people who are watching will say why can you not enact that? why can you not just get that done right now? provide certainty there? and then let's fight over the other stuff. i think what most americans agree on is fairness.
i understand we are in a difficult economy. what they do not understand is why people in the middle, people struggling in the middle are being asked to sacrifice, and people who are well off and in some cases extremely well-off are being told you do nothing. you do nothing. i do not care if you're a democrat or a republican or an independent. that is what people watching think, that it does not seem right. we all have to sacrifice, then we all have to sacrifice. the donald trumps of the world should not be exempt. i sat on the agriculture committee when the cut $16.50 billion from the food and nutrition programs, and we are told that we have this deficit. we have to make these tough choices. these are difficult times. it does not take a lot of courage to tell a millionaire or a billionaire who gives lots of money to political campaigns,
the pace tens of thousands of dollars to go to country club fund-raisers and goes to super pac's, we are going to ask you to do nothing. i think what people are looking for is fairness. i think the democratic alternative represents this. we agree on this. on the other stuff, we can have it out at a later time. >> could i just stayed, i want to comment. what you are commenting about is raising a rate at a certain level, and what we're talking about is comprehensive reform of our entire code. i think you're talking at a rate of $250,000, but millionaires would not be impacted. >> i would like to have comprehensive reform. that is not what you are doing. >> yes, i am. >> and extending the bush tax cuts.
>> for one-year. and a companion bill not only with principles for where we would go but also a companion bill that would have expedited -- >> your extending the tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. >> it is both. >> with all due respect, we have tried in this committee 16 maybe 20 times to try to go after oil subsidies and other special interest tax breaks. we cannot get them. >> we want to look at all of that. >> i do not have a lot of confidence. you are asking for a one-year extension for the bush tax cuts. i've been most americans think that is not fair. >> will the gentleman yield? i think my friend for yielding. i want to remind you that just last week, there was a motion that we would make sure we take action. i praised president obama, as you will recall, about changing the rate, recognizing that is very important in our quest to try to grow the economy.
i believe that in this process, we want to close loopholes. many of the things that my friend has said -- it is very important for us to do this in the context of overall tax reform. as we move to april 30 of next year, what we plan to do is to not, as president obama said, do what would hurt us, that is, increase taxes. >> you have a bill that basically does not extend the child tax credit, does not extend the opportunity tax credit, but protect tax breaks for millionaires and millionaires. >> i will withhold my question. >> you want them extended at the stimulus level. we do it at the same dollar amount. >> i will withhold my question. >> you want them extended at the
stimulus level. we do it at the same dollar amount. both bills are at the same dollar amount. what you do is read -- enhanced refund ability. we go back to the pre-stimulus law. >> i want to correct the record. in two cases, relating to the improvement, which is important in terms of the education opportunities it eliminates. it eliminates this for 11 million families, at the bill the republicans have presented would affect 25 million families. two provisions related to improvements we made and the education opportunity tax -- why in the world, when we talk about the need to improve education, would you eliminated the grant that affects 11 million families? in terms of comprehensive tax reform, it is one thing to talk about -- the main impact of what the republicans are
proposing is to cut rates down to 25 and 10. there would be a $30,000 tax -- $330,000 tax break. break for people with an income over $1 million. it has general principles. there is nothing comprehensive about it. you are saying, we will do it next year. see who is in control. we will have at tax reform either way. right now, this congress has a chance to pass something we all agree to -- middle-income tax cuts. >> these expanded, refundable credits that my friend on the other side calls tax cuts -- a non-partisan joint committee says that these are spending, not tax cuts. when you enhance the